14 comments
:

What is wrong with the RCA's prenup? Even I know the answer to that. It is a Mishneh in Nedorim 90B quoted in Kesubose 36b Tosfose and Rabbeinu Tam. The Mishneh says that a woman has no power to force the husband to give her a GET, no matter what she claims or says. Therefore, when the RCA prenup is designed to empower the woman to force the husband to give her a GET, which is a clear violation of that Mishneh, as taught in the above Tosfose in Kesubose by Rabbeinu Tam.

Another problem. It seems that somebody has investigated and has assured everybody that the Gadol HaDor HaGaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef, zt"l, supports the RCA Prenup, which is a pure lie. Why? How do I know? Nobody told me that. But I read the document and it is not a prenup, period. It is similar in many ways to the classic sefer Nachalas Shiva chapter 9 the first document, about a woman who fled her home because her husband mistreated her. The law is that such a husband must pay his wife twelve golden coins every month she lives with her father. Also, Beth Din is summoned and will settle things in the marriage and the wife will, hopefully, accept her husband now under control of the Beth Din, and there will be Shalom in the house.

The document of the Gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt"l is similar to that. It also begins with a husband who sees his wife leave the house, probably his fault to some degree. He right away sends her some money, and pledges to send some more later, but the amount is up to him to sign. He then summons a Beth Din, that is, he summons the Beth Din, the Beth Din does not take over like the RCA Beth Din wants to do. And the Beth Din settles the problem in the marriage. And if the husband accepts the Beth Din's decision and the wife refuses it, she is out of the picture. This is no prenup like the RCA makes, that wipes out a husband and forces him to divorce his wife. Here the husband is in complete control. So how can anyone say, as Harry Maryles does, that he checked it out and Rav Ovadiah Yosef supports the RCA prenup?

You probably heard about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. Yes, unfortunately, gedolei hador who were at that fatal party allowed their voice to be surpressed. The question of why can hopefully be instructional to us; but the question of why is not in any way indicative of what transpired.

Facts remain facts. If we do merit to know the reasoning, then that may teach us a lesson. But no question about the human condition can ever change the facts.

“Do gedolei haposquim agree with rav Shmuel?” This refers to the Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky heter, on which Tamar married her lover while her husband Aharon Freidman refuses to give her a get. Yes, the same Aharon Freidman beat up by Mendel Epstein goons after $60,000 payment in the Mendel Epstein et al case.

“Received email today which clearly indicated that the vice of opposition to this phony divorce has been deliberately suppressed amongst major poskim”Daattorah received email today that major poskim today are deliberately suppressing opposing the phony divorce, meaning that they support the phony divorce. The divorce is phony because of the financial penalties of the pre-nup. This is a vice, meaning, error or sin to be supporting pre nups.

Talmud - Mas. Nedarim 90b Mishnah. At first it was ruled that three women must be divorced and receive their kethubah. [1] She who declares: I am defiled to you [i.e., unfaithful]. [2] Heaven is between you and me [i.e., her husband is impotent, a thing that, apart from herself, can be known only to Heaven.]. [3] May I be removed from Jews [Including her own husband. By this vow she showed that cohabitation was unbearable to her, and therefore could demand to be divorced and receive her Kethubah]. Subsequently, to prevent her from conceiving a passion for another [Lit., casting her eyes at another man] to the injury of her husband [מקלקלת על בעלה. A difficult phrase. According to the rendering adopted, the meaning is: She will purposely make one of these declarations in order to obtain her freedom against his will. Ran explains: She may go to a place where nothing is known of her vow and marry there. He seemed to have taken this phrase as denoting: She will act unseemly (whilst still) with her husband, and as referring only to the declaration May I be removed from Jews.], the ruling was amended thus: [1] she who declared, I am defiled unto you, must bring proof: [2] Heaven is between me and you they should engage in prayer [That his impotency might cease (Tosaf.) [Lit., They should act by way of a request.] Ran: Attempts should be made to placate the wife. Rashi: The husband should be asked to agree to a divorce.][3] May I be removed from Jews, He [the husband] must annul his portion [i.e., as far as he personally is concerned.] and she shall minister to him, whilst remaining removed from Jews [She will act unseemly (whilst still) with her husband].

How so? They were very vocal with other matters in the past, be it with Chabad, R' Goren, MO, etc etc. Even between the Litvishers , there was no problem criticizing Rav Shmuel A. a few years ago, so why should they be silent with someone in treife America?

This is obvious from what Dovid Feinstein did to make a Beth Din about the problems of Shmuel Kaminetsky and until this day his Beth Din never publicly ordered the new boyfriend of Tamar Epstein to stay away from her. I asked Hillel David, a member of Dovid Feinstein's Beth Din, what the pesak of Dovid Feinstein's Beth Din is, and he told me basically that the Beth Din was only designed to please Shmuel Kaminetsky and if I want to know what the Beth Din ruled I have to ask Shmuel Kaminetsky. I generally have a free mouth but this is so sickening that even my mouth will take a rest. Just this, I told Hillel David that the gemora says that anyone(Shabbos 54b) Anyone who can protest the wrong deeds of his household but he does not, is punished for the sins of his household. If one can protest the wrong deeds of his city but does not do it, is punished for the sins of his city. If he can protest the sins of the entire world but does not, he is punished for the sins of the entire world." Thus, if senior rabbis such as Dovid Feinstein and Hillel David make a Beth Din and refuse to order the boyfriend of a married woman to leave her, something that shows many other women that nobody cares if they do similar sins, the punishment will be for those senior rabbis, namely Dovid Feinstein and Hillel David. I conclude in my blog that Dovid Feinstein is ראוי לנדותו. Besides the sins that he will be punished for, women who leave their husbands and sleep with other men, he will be punished for the sin of Chilul HaShem, being that he is Reb Moshe's son and acts or does not act the way he should. I think there is a competition between senior rabbis. Some hold the biggest mitsvah is to force husbands to give a GET, or to tell women to leave their husbands without a GET. And some hold that the biggest mitsvah is to make a Beth Din that will protect the worst reshoim. For both things, they will be taken to a hot place.

You are offering a few names of mid-level rabbis who support the prenup when all the top rabbis who have addressed it have unanimously opposed it. Top rabbis on record halachicly opposing the RCA prenup include (but is not limited to) Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shternbuch, etc.

Shabbath 54b-55a R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH'S COW. Did he have [but] one cow? Surely Rab-others state, Rab Judah in Rab's name said: The tithe of R. Eleazar b. Azariah's flocks amounted to thirteen thousand calves annually? It was taught: This was not his [the cow referred to in the Mishnah], but a female neighbor of his; yet since he did not protest thereat, it was designated his [lit., it was called by his name]…. Whoever can forbid his household [to commit a sin] but does not, is seized [Just as a pledge is seized for non-payment of debt. I.e., he is punished.] for [the sins of] his household; [if he can forbid] his fellow citizens, he is seized for [the sins of] his fellow citizens; if the whole world, he is seized for [the sins of] the whole world. R. Papa observed, And the members of the Resh Galutha's [household] are seized for the whole world. Even as R. Hanina said, Why is it written, “The Lord will bring this chargeAgainst the elders and officers of His people: It is you who have ravaged the vineyard;That which was robbed from the poor is in your houses. How dare you crush My peopleAnd grind the faces of the poor? —says my Lord God of Hosts” (Isaiah 3:14-15). If the Princes sinned, how did the elders sin? But say, [He will bring punishment] upon the elders because they do not forbid the princes. Rab Judah was sitting before Samuel. [when] a woman came and cried before him [About a wrong done to her.], but he ignored her. Said he to him, Does not the Master agree “Who stops his ears at the cry of the wretched, He too will call and not be answered” (Proverbs 21:13)? O keen scholar! [Or, man of long teeth.] He replied. Your superior [will be punished] with cold [water]. but your superior's superior [will be punished] with hot [I.e., I, your superior, will go unscathed, because there is a higher court than mine, viz., Mar Ukba's. which should really take the matter up.]. Surely Mar Ukba, the Ab-Beth din is sitting! For it is written, “O House of David, thus said the Lord: Render just verdicts Morning by morning;Rescue him who is robbed From him who defrauded him. Else My wrath will break forth like fire And burn, with none to quench it, Because of your wicked acts” (Jeremiah 21:12). [From this Samuel deduced that only the head, with whom lay the real power, would be punished.]

No, most were silent with Chabad. It took a Rav Schach to take on their messianism.

Rav Goren was a very different type of figure. Either way, it was Rav Moshe and Rav Abramsky who led the charge against what he did.

But that is not the main reason. The real reason is that in the other cases (Chabad, R. Goren etc.) there was a continuing ideology which has continuous consequences that was being fought against. Here, they may feel that this is an indiscretion that Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky, his son R. Shalom, or Rabbi Greenblatt will never repeat. In fact, all three say that it wasn't them, which is why they justify ignoring it.

It is a sad story. I wish that Rav Shmuel would just put out a public statement acknowledging that there was a serious error.

I agree with your analysis (without taking sides ). Rav S. K is one of their own, so it is harder to attack. In the case of the "moshiach" campaign, it was still hard but Rav Shach took the reins, because it was a danger to all Klal Yisrael, and with R' Goren, he was a modernizer with too many previous clashes with the hareidi posqim. At the time, the Rebbe of Lubavitch was widely respected, so it was very difficult , even for me, to see him being attacked by the misnagdim.

https://cross-currents.com/2017/09/15/orthodoxys-smashing-success-lurking-challenges/ BY AVROHOM GORDIMER · PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 15, 20...

Rav Zev Leff recommends my 3 books on Child & Domestic Abuse

Click on picture to hear excerpt from Jan. 2012 Kav L'Noar conference. "I want to first give hakoras hatov to Dr. Baruch Shulem who provided me with Daniel Eidensohn's books on child abuse and domestic abuse which offered me many many sources and it gave me many many ideas to be able to deal with the subject properly. And I thank them and I recommend those books to everyone who is interested in getting a good foundation what the issues are in this very important topic."